Battle Type Preference in Quick Battles?

[Sulomon]

Just curious what battle type people like the most in quick battles.  I play attack most of the time and mostly as the attacker.  I use to play meeting engagements a bit often but they're more boring than attacking or defending.  I rarely play assault since it gives the attacker such significant advantages.  I haven't played a single probe match, still need to try it out.

[Badger73]

My experience one with "Probe" mirror match left me dissatisfied.  I felt the burden was on the probing force which lacks sufficient strength to secure defended objectives.  On the other hand, I know a player who prefers Probes to Meeting Engagements for his H2H matches.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Badger73

[A Canadian Cat]

Probe to me seems the most balanced. It is my preferred format.

[Bulletpoint]

It does depend mostly on the layout of the map I think. Problem is that the mission type should match the difficulty of the map.

If someone designs a map that gives a lack of cover for the defender, but then labels it as an "assault" map, it will be a complete walkover for the attacker.

For probes, the designer should not demand all that much from the attacker, since he won't be very strong.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

11 hours ago, Sulomon said:

I play attack most of the time and mostly as the attacker.

Same here if I am playing a WW II title. However, for the last couple of years if I am playing BS, I seem to mostly gravitate towards meeting engagements. Once in a while I will play an attack engagement as defender in BS, and have found that to be generally satisfying. I love a good ambush.

Michael

[Josey Wales]

I go through phases. I feel as if I understand reasonably well how to put together an attack so at the moment I prefer defensive battles. I find mounting a good defense to be technically very challenging. With a defensive battle you pretty much play the game before the first turn, especially if you lack mobility. I would argue that as a defender you need to be more thorough in your METT-T and OCOKA analysis than when attacking as you will typically lack flexibility after the game starts.

[Bulletpoint]

I also much prefer to play defence. Because it's something the game can't really do well in single-player, and because I really love playing mind games with my opponent  

[Rinaldi]

6 hours ago, Josey Wales said:

I go through phases. I feel as if I understand reasonably well how to put together an attack so at the moment I prefer defensive battles. I find mounting a good defense to be technically very challenging. With a defensive battle you pretty much play the game before the first turn, especially if you lack mobility. I would argue that as a defender you need to be more thorough in your METT-T and OCOKA analysis than when attacking as you will typically lack flexibility after the game starts.

Same boat as you presently,. Asides from my current PBEM with @BrotherSurplice I'm defending in all my other games - namely because I want some damn practice in it. 

[MikeyD]

I recall a long time ago there was a discussion about battle types. At the time balanced Meeting Engagements were considered the most popular QB mode, and also the most unrealistic. The argument was that armies do not often blindly stumble upon one another in the field. Equal forces do not often encounter each other by accident. The counter-argument was, at CM scale, we're not looking at armies stumbling blindly about but discrete units tasked with probing, advancing, intercepting, spoiling attacks, maintaining pressure on the enemy, etc. So there's an argument in favor of the balanced ME.

 

[Badger73]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

<snipped> and because I really love playing mind games with my opponent  

A fact to which I can readily attest, min ven!  However, the therapy sessions are going much better now and my catatonic fits occur less often . . .

To the points already raised, I suppose it really does depend on what phase you're in at the moment.  Competitive H2H are best served by Meeting Engagements.  Attack and Defense require skills at planning, flexibility in responses, and fortitude in play.  CM games effectively allow players to explore all those approaches as it suits them.  These are games that certainly keep you from getting into any kind of rut.